Talk:Main Page

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Errors with "In the news"

• In the first blurb "The Winter Paralympics close in northern Italy.", I think conclude would be a better synonym to use here since the blurb is about the event ending. Furthermore, while I am not a grammar expert, but I believe the blurb is written with the subject (The Winter Paralympics) in third person, so I think the proper form for the verb, in this case, would be closes/concludes. I may be wrong though. ~2026-16552-33 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-16552-33: As the link for the verb in the sentence points to the 2026 Winter Paralympics closing ceremony article, "close" seems the correct choice. "The Winter Paralympics" is the sentence's subject, so it's written as first-person plural; "closes" would be incorrect. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Errors in "On this day"

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Visibility of adult industry

Today, the first item on the "Did you know ..." section is the following:

... that Savannah Bond (pictured) sold cosmetics before entering the adult film industry?

Shouldn't the main page of Wikipedia be safe for primary school students? It's reasonable to assume that some primary school student would get interested into what is that makes Savannah Bond notable enough that selling cosmetics can be an interesting contrast to her current status. Nxavar (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia(the internet generally, really) should be used by minors with supervision and safeguards on their end. While the most graphic content is not generally put on the Main Page(though occasionally the featured image is of artwork or imagery depicting a topless or nude woman). Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Removing the connection of Spitzer to a prostitution ring or the "hush money" issue between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels for primary school concerns is what would be a real issue. I don't think that "censorship" in the "sold cosmetics" case is doing harm. If you want some "rule" for when censorship should be taken very seriously, it would be significant news coverage. If some information has significant news coverage then no censorship is allowed.

Also note that this is Wikipedia's main page. Being accessible to the widest possible audience is a priority. I'm not arguing here that articles on adult film industry topics should not exist or should be as limited as possible. Nxavar (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The main purpose of the Main Page content is to motivate the improvement of articles. If certain topics were absolutely prohibited from the Main Page, those topics would be less likely to get improvements.

You are free to participate in the processes that determine what appears in the various sections of the Main Page and argue that a particular topic isn't appropriate for posting to it, but that isn't likely to be persuasive due to WP:NOTCENSORED.

Human nature is such that keeping information from someone (even minors) has the opposite effect of making them more curious about it(Streisand effect) because humans generally want to know why something is being kept from them. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The WP:NOTCENSORED is about articles. The Main Page is not an article. Nxavar (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere is it said that it is limited to articles. As I said, the most graphic content is not generally placed on the Main Page, but a mere mention of the adult film industry is not graphic. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that you aren't the first, and won't be the last, to bring this up. But it hasn't changed yet, and isn't likely to. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's just unnecessary "not-censored-at-all" flex. Nxavar (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that there are items that must stay on the mainpage despite the fact that they're not what you consider child-suitable, then what's the point about quibbling about other items?

Anyway, I think this sort of discussion is exactly why NOCENSORED exists. To put a premature stop to this sort of discussion because it's very very well established that these discussions go nowhere.

If you're worried about your personal children, why not direct them to www.wikipedia.org? That's a perfectly usable landing page with no interesting content whatsoever. ApLundell (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If we're worried about children, then them learning that a adult film actress used to see cosmetics, is the least of our worries. They can freely wonder over to PornHub and find any manner of violent smut. As 331dot said, children probably shouldn't be on the internet in general without some sort of adult oversight. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the Wikipedia main page is not exactly on parent's radar for porn info. Nxavar (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

There are other reasons for parents to be supervising children on Wikipedia, not just looking out for porn. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

And Wikipedia shouldn't care at all in making this any easier? Nxavar (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot and should not substitute for parents, no. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nope. If you're a parent it is on you to be a parent. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a sad and ignorant response imo. Just saying "they should do better" is disrespectful and a way to escape responsibility for something. In part, I agree with you, but you also need to be realistic.

& @TarnishedPath, your claim that they would wonder over to PornHub doesn't make a lot of sense. In many places, that site is illegal and in all others it comes with multiple boundaries to prevent easy access. Regardless, a child would need to first KNOW what that site is before they can go there as they can't advertise in the same way other sites can. A child doesn't need to do the same for Wikipedia. In fact, because of these DYKs, young children probably have discovered PornHub. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Learning porn exists makes them discover PornHub? Interesting logic. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I mean, if you discover it exists, then you go look up the subjects. And then there are websites. I'd say aesurias' logic is solid. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 16:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You're assuming they're going to then access it via certain websites. That's faulty logic. Just because I learn about, say, skydiving because it was indirectly referred to on the main page doesn't mean I'm going to start watching skydiving videos or start, uh, skydiving myself. Including existing knowledge and information on the main page in a neutral way doesn't push anyone to do anything. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

i started the discussion about the article's interest as a 'dyk' fact here, and just thought i'd offer my own brief thoughts. i'm not against the appearance of sex work-related content appearing on the front page. however, i do think there's a misunderstanding of wp:notcensored in that it concerns specifically the removal of content, not a restriction on pedestalising. it would be nice to see some level of editor self-restraint since some part of it feels demeaning—though i recognise this is impossible to cohere. we want to foster an environment of inclusive participation, and that is for readers even more-so than for editors, many of whom (in both categories) are children. if we want to be seen as serious then it would make sense to have an analogous level of sensitivity to professional publications regarding the spotlighting of certain material. this isn't proposing a 'porn ban' or a catering to the will of governments or courts, but some kind of sensitivity to reader and editor involvement with a project that is supposed to be open to everyone. perhaps a limitation on how many hooks appear related to the topic over a period of a week/month, or a restriction on hooks-per-editor, perhaps not generally using that hook for the image slot to reduce visibility? i note that of the other nominations at least three were also proposed using an image, one of a headshot of the subject similar to the one used for savannah bond that was nominated by the same editor. i want them all to appear, but i also want every reader to feel like the site is catering for them uncontroversially, and i want them to think that we're being serious.--Plifal (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The one time I complained about child-friendly content was when we featured content on the front page that contained a sexual swear word that was flagged by many school content filters (which, at least in the UK, they are required to have), thus blocking the Main Page for a day. I was met with a bunch of condescending crap along the lines of "ah, the poor little mites might see a bad word? NOTCENSORED IS GOD!" This, however, is not problematic in that sense. Having said that, my issue this time is that the DYK hook is so quite incredibly boring I don't actually know how it was promoted in the first place, which is being discussed at WT:DYK. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A boring hook is certainly a different issue from this. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

We need to stop with the WP:NOTCENSORED stuff in general. If I was a parent and my young child had told me that they had learned about multiple pornstars through the front page of Wikipedia, which is marketed as the online encyclopedia, I'd be horrified. There is a difference between Wikipedia pages about pornstars and any variety of "inappropriate" topics existing (which is fine obviously) and promoting said pages with a comical regularity on the main page. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, with all due respect, reading a foul word and learning about the concept of "pornstar" and "adult film industry" sit on completely different levels of "child-friendly" content concern. Btw, is the main page blocked today? Because if it's not, then the filters are too superficial. Nxavar (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how you'd construct a filter which would hit every possible collection of words relating to porn and I suspect it would have far too many false positives and Scunthorpe effect issues. Most would, however, react to the word "porn" itself. But this isn't really the point, to be honest - filters are there to stop pupils accessing porn, not to prevent them knowing that it exists in the first place, which would be practically impossible. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

also, as soon as you are catering to censorimg one facet of knowledge, that creates the slippery slooe for a wgole bunch of other facets (liie gender identify, LGBT, etc). it was s bettee WP does not censir and work under the principle of least astonimishment. Masem (t) 13:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not how most educational filters work, however. It would be bizarre to censor LGBTQ+ or gender identity issues considering that information on those issues is actually taught in schools (well, it is in most European countries, I appreciate that the US is somewhat different). Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

you'd think t, but in the US, both fed and state level bills are proposed to restrict matter deemed harmful to children, which on some communities will include those topics.And of course if we talk other coubtries like Russia or China ba where such topics are also suppressed. WP of course should not cater to these at all. Masem (t) 15:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You'd rather they learn about porn through far more dubious websites than Wikipedia? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The hook is quite bland to some of the others I proposed. I included the hook as an option because I realised that the others didn't stand much of a chance of running on the front page. See Template:Did you know nominations/Savannah Bond. TarnishedPath^talk 11:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with the current blurb. Firstly, children should not be using the internet unsupervised. Secondly, even if a child did read that, all they see is 'adult film', without a link, which is clearly just telling them it's a film for adults. Only someone already familiar with the concept of pornography would associate that blurb with sex. Third, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISCLAIMER apply. Fourth, even the article itself is pretty tame, certainly far less upsetting than the various wars we have linked from the Main Page. So there's no need to change this rather bland blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 12:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED certainly does not apply to main page with the same severity that it applies to articles. The conscious tendency to omit graphic content, something that @331dot: seems to agree to, is proof enough. Nxavar (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not graphic content. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I've got two of my hooks on the frontpage today, one about a adult film actress who used to sell cosmetics and another about a journalist who got his house blown up for reporting on organised crime. I know what's more graphic and it's not the one everyone is talking about. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You mean that the performances of pornstars are not graphic? Or at least not on the same level as a blown up house? Nxavar (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A porn star performing their job is not being depicted; no nude imagery or sex acts. Only a reference to "adult film" which to anyone not in the know just means a film for adults. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

By discussing this here you're actually increasing the chances it will be read about; Streisand effect in action. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Chances are already set. Continuing. What does "pornographic" for someone not in the know mean then? Simply hovering over the name gives out that word. Nxavar (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nxavar, the word "pornographic" isn't pornographic. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to adjust the short description (the hover/what appears in search) so it does not use the word "pornographic", that's a matter for the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

An interesting discussion but totally "besides the point". The DYK mention received approval, the porn industry is a legitimate business, actors work for a living and pay taxes, and maybe by mentioning her here her brother may speak to her again. 'Not censored' would be a factor if there was anything here to censor (there isn't). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A while ago I proposed DYK be abolished & replaced with a daily GA excerpt for issues like this but nothing came of it. As an aside I do think there's been too much adult content on the mainpage recently (seems limited to DYK) and there is a shock policy already in effect IMO (ie why we don't post the Debbie Does Dallas video to its page despite it being public domain). 781h (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

We do have the full Debbie Does Dallas video on its page. I have repeatedly opposed it being there because it breaks the UK's new child safety laws and could harm Wikipedia. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, actually in this case, debbie does dallas would be a case where i think wp:notcensored does and should apply. wikipedia should not cater to the whims of a single government. the point made is that there's already a quiet consensus that the main page has been censored unofficially; that we wouldn't, for example, post the full video of a pornographic film despite wp:notcensored.--Plifal (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying Wikipedia should capitulate, but I think it would be silly to pretend that a block or age-check being imposed on the website for all UK visitors would not harm us... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Essentially: do the pros (allowing people to watch a full-length vintage porno that is already in the public domain) outweigh the possible cons (restricted access to almost 70 million people) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, tbc i'm not fully against your position here, but i think it sets a bad precedent if we start pre-emptively removing content from articles when in many countries this content is illegal; yet they take the risk and retain wikipedia as an online service.--Plifal (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

A government looking to censor Wikipedia is going to do so regardless of rational. This is why there is no need to praise the Turkish government to avoid the (since overturned) ban in the country. With how vague (and untested) the Online Safety Act is, there is no reason to preemptively remove content that may not even be an issue in the UK. GGOTCC 07:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they do. You should be asking the UK government if the pros of their laws outweigh the cons of the fallout. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Raised a suggestion related to the subject. M. Billoo 13:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Full discussion for all who are interested Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 7 (13 March). TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

A few considerations. First, WP:NOTCENSORED, we have to be very firm about this. On the PT wiki, there practically a ban on porn star biographies, and I would not like to see that here on the EN Wiki. Children should not access the internet without supervision, and there is nothing in the text that an adult cannot explain to a child. Second, if there is to be any content moderation on the Main Page, that moderation must be clear. Third, common sense...

...

that Savannah Bond (pictured) sold cosmetics before entering the film industry?

It doesn't seem like censorship to me, and it doesn't detract from the understanding of DYK.

Fourth, as mentioned, this DYK was boring and frivolous. A DYK about porn stars like Andrea Absolonová, whose biography was even made into a movie, would be much more constructive.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I notice that no-one complained yesterday, when OTD had a blurb about the gang rape and murder of a child. That's far more graphic and disturbing than the phrase 'adult film'. It's bizarre that a mild euphemism for pornography gets a more prurient response. (FWIW, I'm comfortable with both blurbs.) Modest Genius ^talk 14:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There's a general editorial policy for newspapers where they try to ensure that nothing on the front page is disturbing or graphic enough to not disturb someone's morning breakfast. That's more or less the general rule I follow for here. The blub isn't graphic, isn't disturbing, just acknowledges something mundane. The demographics for newspapers and Wikipedia (literate, general audience) should be pretty similar. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Any concerns with animations being "Today's featured animation"?

Currently videos are "Today's featured video" and everything else is "Today's featured picture". dot.py has asked for the new Lua module to be updated so that animations are "Today's featured animation", saying I personally don't think that an animation should count as a picture, considering the point of this template is practically saying that a video is not a picture. Also, animations on {{POTD}} say "Animation credit:" as opposed to "Photograph credit:", "Poster credit:", etc.

It seems reasonable enough to me but I just wanted it to have a bit more visibility than an obscure-ish module talk page. Legoktm (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

GIFs are not exclusively animations though, they may encode short videos. Stephen 19:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Having it based on whether the image is animated, rather than on the format (as we also have animated PNGs or SVGs now) could be a helpful way to go at it, although I'm not sure if we can detect this in Lua. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to imply that we feature an animation every day, which is not the case. I think I would prefer a more general term like "Today's featured media" for anything which is not a picture — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Ongoing panel

The old one was way Much better, now it just don't look right, With (Recent death) Redirect normally while (Ongoing) is just as Sitting there BOLD I Suggest return it to the older Form. Moslim Al-Asady (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This was changed as previously ongoing was the link to portal:currentbevets, which makes it an EGG violation. The portal:current evts link is now very clear, but does remove the link that ongoing had. Masem (t) 15:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Still, Unfitting look, Considering the Recent death is linked, what is am EGG violations, Ongoing gives the same meaning as current events.

I still used to Press ongoing to direct to Current event and not only me,Also is surprised nobody talks about it considering most of people i met still mistaken it. Moslim Al-Asady (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems fine as is. Perhaps some people are used to seeing this word linked, but to a visitor there is no reason this needs to link anywhere. "Ongoing" is a very simple English word — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)